PDA

View Full Version : Apple hits the fan


Zet
May 13th, 2010, 07:57 PM
So with the current mass amount of companies suing Apple for patent infringement, what is your opinion on it? Mine would be that Apple is getting what they deserve. Seriously, they have been biased for years, sell you over priced crap and release a new better version the next year just for you to throw more money at them.... And besides the suing, there's also Apple trying to get rid of flash even though Adobe has supported Apple for years.

Lucy Lu
May 13th, 2010, 09:50 PM
Wow, that is insane. Poor Apple. Well I guess they do deserve it. They overprice their stuff. If it wasn't the case I would love to gotten more Apple stuff. All I have is iPod Touch, and that is all they are getting from me.

I think maybe they will get out of the rut and rebuild. Got to wait and see.

Zet
May 13th, 2010, 11:00 PM
Well people who buy the mac usually doing it for video editing and stuff so they will purchase adobe premier for the editing but if Apple removes all connections to Adobe, a lot less mac will be sold(not like there are any sales, hur hur)

linkinpark187
May 14th, 2010, 03:05 AM
Actually, you really don't need a Mac for video/photo editing anymore, either. Think about it. Now that the world has HDMI, if you get a PC with HDMI outputs and you have a monitor/TV with the inputs, then you have a great quality screen (I know, because I have this particular setup at home). I probably would have bought a Mac years ago if I could have ever afforded one, but I can't.

I knew about them trying to out Flash, which is just ridiculous, because about 99% of sites that have content on them is in Flash (not an actual figure, but that seems to be the way it is in my experience). I think they're going to be making an enemy out of Adobe if they don't cut it out.

That's something else that bugs me about Mac is it's founder, Steve Jobs. He thinks that Apple is the ultimate company in everything. Don't tell me he doesn't, just watch his video on revealing the iPad. He even comes out and says (in a general manner) that the iPad is far superior to the netbook. Can't wait for the HP Slate to come out. Then we'll se which is superior. Muah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! lol

Zet
May 14th, 2010, 03:34 AM
Well at least he had a cry over how the Android phone had more sales in the first quarter than the iphone did.

linkinpark187
May 14th, 2010, 04:18 AM
Yeah, I heard about that. I'm sure when he heard about that, he probably died a little inside. :laugh:

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 14th, 2010, 05:27 AM
It's his own stupid fault for being such a jerk to developers and out'ing flash. Android 2.2 will have flash, you know. That to me says Android will have the iPhone by the neck.

Apple's getting what it deserves. I've grown sick to the point I want to puke of Apple's illegal, misleading, unfair behavior.

Apple gets away with everything Microsoft gets put down for. It's absolutely infuriating to watch from the comfort of my home.

>8/

I can understand Linux getting away with stuff, because it's free / open source.

But Apple products are the polar opposite of open source.

In short, I hope Apple gets put in it's place once and for all.

Cherrim
May 14th, 2010, 05:34 AM
I don't really care much about these lawsuits. :( Probably sucks for Apple.

But I did lol over Steve Jobs's "omg flash sucks because it is not open source!!!" essay while he's sitting on top of the app store which, imo, is far, far worse as far as being accessible, open-sourced, etc. :|

(Also lol'd at Pixar who supposedly has a very close relationship with Apple--the Toy Story 3 website is flash-based. Bet Jobs was thrilled!)

linkinpark187
May 14th, 2010, 06:12 AM
That's funny. It's kind of like Pixar just gave a big old f' you to Apple. Now Pixar just needs to start moving over to PC. That would really upset Lord Jobs. :laugh:

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 14th, 2010, 09:10 AM
(Also lol'd at Pixar who supposedly has a very close relationship with Apple--the Toy Story 3 website is flash-based. Bet Jobs was thrilled!)

I had no idea Toy Story 3 was coming out!!! D=

Also, is anyone besides me still fuming over the fact that Mac gets to push it's favorite Browser, Safari, while in the EU, Windows is forbidden from doing so?

That's just one of the reasons I don't feel any sympathy for Apple.

Zet
May 14th, 2010, 06:26 PM
I don't really care much about these lawsuits. :( Probably sucks for Apple.

But I did lol over Steve Jobs's "omg flash sucks because it is not open source!!!" essay while he's sitting on top of the app store which, imo, is far, far worse as far as being accessible, open-sourced, etc. :|

(Also lol'd at Pixar who supposedly has a very close relationship with Apple--the Toy Story 3 website is flash-based. Bet Jobs was thrilled!)

Jobs said flash was a resource hog and caused Macs to crash, but Adobe's CEO said "If Flash is the #1 reason Macs crash, which I'm not aware of, it has as much as to do with the Apple [mac] OS"

Also, Portal runs twice as fast on Windows than it does on an Apple computer.

edit: Oh wow an Apple store that has discrimination, that's just sad. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/07/2010-05-07_untitled__2apple07m.html

twocows
May 15th, 2010, 12:44 PM
I had no idea Toy Story 3 was coming out!!! D=

Also, is anyone besides me still fuming over the fact that Mac gets to push it's favorite Browser, Safari, while in the EU, Windows is forbidden from doing so?

That's just one of the reasons I don't feel any sympathy for Apple.

That's bugged me for a while. Apple's far more monopolistic than Microsoft is, and yet Microsoft catches all the crap for whatever reason. Apple forces you to buy their hardware if you want to use their software, and bundles a lot of their in-house software with their OS. You can't buy Apple unless you buy EVERYTHING Apple, this is the definition of monopolistic behavior. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been sued off the face of the earth. Microsoft even has an open source foundation (http://www.codeplex.com/) now; they've done a lot in recent years to change my opinion of them.

Aureol
May 15th, 2010, 01:04 PM
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... hard to tell who I hate more sometimes :| Both of them are greedy punks. I like the Mac computer more, but I hate both companies a lot. Whether one company gets more crud than the other I don't care, but they are both trying the same things. I guess I feel a little bad for Microsoft because Apple's gotten away with more, but still...

Saltare.
May 15th, 2010, 01:28 PM
The only Apple thing I own is an iPod Touch and that was around $300...I don't blame them being sued. Everything is overpriced...

.Seth
May 15th, 2010, 01:57 PM
I admit Apple's overpriced, but their products far outshine most of what's on the market. I have an iPhone 3GS, and I could never go back to a samsung, or any other phone. I'm interested in trying out a Droid, but Android doesn't have that luster that I see when I look at my iPhone. And no, I'm not some rich stuck-up Apple fanboy, I just bought a $200 phone and it's simply awesome. :/

Their computers are what's really overpriced. A Macbook Pro 13" is on my wishlist, and it's over twice as expensive as the hardware I have now (500GB HD, 3GB DDR2, to be brief).

I'm not that surprised that they're being sued, but HTC's doing something a bit drastic IMO, trying to halt all of Apple's sales.

And, as far as Apple not being open-source, this is why people jailbreak their iDevices, to open up many goodies that Apple doesn't like, which is what makes their products truly shine. MyWi (instant wi-fi and usb tethering) is a lifesaver at times, and things like Winterboard (theming, think: custom icons, your own wallpaper in the springboard) and so much more. A little tinkering, and their locked-down products can be a lot more open source, with thousands of developers making tweaks and apps that Apple won't allow available.

wakachamo
May 15th, 2010, 03:17 PM
My brain hurts so much from all of these posts.

First off this has nothing to do with Flash. The patent issue is actually a counter-attack from HTC. While I agree that Apple's been detrimentally anti-competitive these past few months, Flash is not related in any way to this. I don't get why you're all complaining about this. Apple's still allowing development of Flash on OSX (in fact they started encouraging it since a few months ago), it's just not for their mobile devices. That's a decision that, in my opinion, a manufacturer is entitled to take. If something's not up to performance standards, then they should have the right to not include it.

People are moving away from Flash. 26% of video is now H.264-ready compared to January's 10% (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/14/26-of-web-video-is-ready-for-the-ipad/), and more and more companies are abdicating from flash as a general-purpose webdesign utility and are beginning to explore the actually standardized HTML5 techniques.

Can't wait for the HP Slate to come out. Then we'll se which is superior. Muah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! lol

Actually, the HP Slate was canceled (http://jkontherun.com/2010/04/30/ms-courier-hp-slate-canceled/).

It's his own stupid fault for being such a jerk to developers and out'ing flash.

That, of all other things, is definitely not true. They provide stellar, rock-solid frameworks and environments (http://developer.apple.com) (before you say anything, I'm not pulling facts out of my ass), and even the Mac platform is extremely developer-oriented right out of the box. (Windows doesn't include Ruby (and Rails)/Python/Java dev environments, while OS X has them all)

Also, Portal runs twice as fast on Windows than it does on an Apple computer.

Comparing an open beta to a solid graphics engine that's been around for years is kind of dumb.

That's bugged me for a while. Apple's far more monopolistic than Microsoft is, and yet Microsoft catches all the crap for whatever reason. Apple forces you to buy their hardware if you want to use their software, and bundles a lot of their in-house software with their OS. You can't buy Apple unless you buy EVERYTHING Apple, this is the definition of monopolistic behavior. Quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been sued off the face of the earth. Microsoft even has an open source foundation (http://www.codeplex.com/) now; they've done a lot in recent years to change my opinion of them.
Apple's frameworks are actually based on several open-source projects (http://opensource.apple.com/) to which they have endlessly contributed. Both companies are equally devoted to open-source software.

And, as far as Apple not being open-source, this is why people jailbreak their iDevices, to open up many goodies that Apple doesn't like, which is what makes their products truly shine. MyWi (instant wi-fi and usb tethering) is a lifesaver at times, and things like Winterboard (theming, think: custom icons, your own wallpaper in the springboard) and so much more. A little tinkering, and their locked-down products can be a lot more open source, with thousands of developers making tweaks and apps that Apple won't allow available.

Open-source software doesn't have anything to do with jailbreaking your device. There are several open-source projects on the App Store, a prime example being Colloquy Mobile (http://colloquy.mobi/). You're thinking about freedom of development, which is a much more complex issue, not "open-source".

While I agree that Apple is slowly starting to become the very company they criticized and feared, some of these points are unfounded and make no sense. This is basically a counter-sue by HTC and is primarily based on interface-related issues and conflicts, not an immature war between who makes the loudest cry.

Zet
May 15th, 2010, 05:47 PM
I admit Apple's overpriced, but their products far outshine most of what's on the market. I have an iPhone 3GS, and I could never go back to a samsung, or any other phone. I'm interested in trying out a Droid, but Android doesn't have that luster that I see when I look at my iPhone. And no, I'm not some rich stuck-up Apple fanboy, I just bought a $200 phone and it's simply awesome. :/

Their computers are what's really overpriced. A Macbook Pro 13" is on my wishlist, and it's over twice as expensive as the hardware I have now (500GB HD, 3GB DDR2, to be brief).

I'm not that surprised that they're being sued, but HTC's doing something a bit drastic IMO, trying to halt all of Apple's sales.

And, as far as Apple not being open-source, this is why people jailbreak their iDevices, to open up many goodies that Apple doesn't like, which is what makes their products truly shine. MyWi (instant wi-fi and usb tethering) is a lifesaver at times, and things like Winterboard (theming, think: custom icons, your own wallpaper in the springboard) and so much more. A little tinkering, and their locked-down products can be a lot more open source, with thousands of developers making tweaks and apps that Apple won't allow available.

Nice to know you don't enjoy multi-tasking and won't be able to use OS4 because you bricked your iphone for jailbreaking it,

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... hard to tell who I hate more sometimes :| Both of them are greedy punks. I like the Mac computer more, but I hate both companies a lot. Whether one company gets more crud than the other I don't care, but they are both trying the same things. I guess I feel a little bad for Microsoft because Apple's gotten away with more, but still...
Bill Gates isn't a greedy douche bag like Steven Jobs. Gates actually does charitable stuff.

Comparing an open beta to a solid graphics engine that's been around for years is kind of dumb.

I saw a test done between windows and mac when running Portal.

here's a link to it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance

twocows
May 15th, 2010, 06:15 PM
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... hard to tell who I hate more sometimes :| Both of them are greedy punks. I like the Mac computer more, but I hate both companies a lot. Whether one company gets more crud than the other I don't care, but they are both trying the same things. I guess I feel a little bad for Microsoft because Apple's gotten away with more, but still...
Bill Gates is about as far from a "greedy punk" as you can get with someone at his level of wealth. He's a huge philanthropist, he founds and contributes to his own charity organization that helps millions of people.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, sues people for talking about his products.


Apple's frameworks are actually based on several open-source projects (http://opensource.apple.com/) to which they have endlessly contributed. Both companies are equally devoted to open-source software.

The way I understand it (and I could be wrong), Apple is required to contribute to the open source projects they... "base" their software on. Perhaps I'm entirely off-base. Still, they're extremely locked down and closed off with everything else, and their ethical decisions are atrocious at best. You said it best yourself; they're becoming the company they once hated (or at least the one that Woz hated).

Hiroshi Sotomura
May 16th, 2010, 04:19 AM
I saw a test done between windows and mac when running Portal.

here's a link to it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3726/quick-look-mac-os-x-portal-performance
Quoting from the article here: http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/09/steam.for.mac.very.similar.but.with.quirks/

[S-HIGHLIGHT] Simultaneously, Portal may also be one of the best examples of performance differences between Mac OS X and Windows.[/s-highlight] [ cut for brevity ] [s-highlight]It was here we also got a sign of the games being in a rough state, at least in the beta.[/S-HIGHLIGHT] When we first played Portal, the game actually broke in the fourth test chamber: an elevator that was to move us along simply climbed upwards while we stayed put. It similarly didn't seem to recognize the achievements we'd already recorded in the Windows version. There have been multiple patches that have fixed this and more -- all delivered automatically, thanks to Steam -- but we wouldn't be surprised if the first games out of the gate may need tweaking before they're completely polished for the Mac.
[S-HIGHLIGHT]Our experience was markedly better with Team Fortress 2[/S-HIGHLIGHT], which also represents a more traditional, hardcore gamer's title. [ cut for brevity ] [S-HIGHLIGHT]Performance differences were harder to sort out:[/S-HIGHLIGHT] we normally play the game below native resolution due to its much stricter demand for a fast frame rate, and at a middling 1344x756 resolution both Mac and Windows versions were running quickly with 2X antialiasing, anisotropic filtering and maximum detail, even in very chaotic scenes. [S-HIGHLIGHT]We suspect the Windows version might still win out were we to boost the resolution higher, but the nature of the display is a problem on both sides.[/S-HIGHLIGHT]

I should also point out how this topic has deviated from patent disputes between two companies (between phones), to a matter about the App Store lockdown and the Flash debate (which I note is irrelevant to Mac OS X itself), to a discussion about Steam for Mac and its performance. The original topic even failed to drive home how this patent dispute would involve its fans. Drive this topic to what you're getting at or I will close it.

twocows
May 16th, 2010, 04:13 PM
I believe the topic was "what is your opinion on what's currently happening with Apple," in which case I have to say they're getting what they deserve. The app store nonsense and refusing to support Flash were a huge slap in the face toward developers; tack that on to all the other questionable stuff they do and I have no sympathy for them. Additionally, they were the ones that filed the suit initially, and against HTC, a company I have a lot of respect for. I have no problems with Apple being sued into the ground; I say it's about time someone called them on their crap.

Zet
May 16th, 2010, 06:28 PM
I really should have generalized what I posted when the thread title as "Apple hits the fan" but really it's to do with all the crap Apple has been doing lately and what's happening to them.

Also Jobs wants freedom from porn (http://gawker.com/5539717/)

twocows
May 16th, 2010, 07:09 PM
I really should have generalized what I posted when the thread title as "Apple hits the fan" but really it's to do with all the crap Apple has been doing lately and what's happening to them.

Also Jobs wants freedom from porn (http://gawker.com/5539717/)

Wow, what a douche. "Freedom from porn?" Isn't that just censorship? And the line about needing to create things to be important? Oh jeez. He just dissed a lot of people. Does the Red Cross create anything? Does the Electronic Frontier Foundation create anything? For that matter, does APPLE create anything? No, they don't; Apple builds on things that already exist like most people, only difference is they claim to be "inventing" when they're really "marketing."

Zet
May 16th, 2010, 09:57 PM
It's also as bad as when Apple censored some cartoon/comic strips for ipods and what not. I guess Apple is the China of Operating Systems, hur hur.

wakachamo
May 17th, 2010, 09:45 AM
I believe the topic was "what is your opinion on what's currently happening with Apple," in which case I have to say they're getting what they deserve. The app store nonsense and refusing to support Flash were a huge slap in the face toward developers; tack that on to all the other questionable stuff they do and I have no sympathy for them. Additionally, they were the ones that filed the suit initially, and against HTC, a company I have a lot of respect for. I have no problems with Apple being sued into the ground; I say it's about time someone called them on their crap.
I don't see how it's a slap in the face for developers. If Apple wants to maintain the quality of their distribution channel, then that's their problem, not yours. Besides, developers aren't forced to use Apple's platform. And even then, their own frameworks aren't really that hard to use. Like I said before, Apple focuses a lot on developer support and always has.
I really should have generalized what I posted when the thread title as "Apple hits the fan" but really it's to do with all the crap Apple has been doing lately and what's happening to them.
So this thread is now a "Let's bash Apple thread". k.
Wow, what a douche. "Freedom from porn?" Isn't that just censorship? And the line about needing to create things to be important? Oh jeez. He just dissed a lot of people. Does the Red Cross create anything? Does the Electronic Frontier Foundation create anything? For that matter, does APPLE create anything? No, they don't; Apple builds on things that already exist like most people, only difference is they claim to be "inventing" when they're really "marketing."
Bash me if you can't resist but Apple does innovate. This isn't to say that they've demonstrated the capability to create something completely new, but they definitely have the skill to build upon a concept and make it solid and appealing. The iPhone has spawned an entirely different market that manufacturers didn't even know existed. Since then, pretty much every manufacturer has decided to hop on the bandwagon.
It's also as bad as when Apple censored some cartoon/comic strips for ipods and what not. I guess Apple is the China of Operating Systems, hur hur.
I take it the "strips for ipods" is in reference to the App Store, which in my opinion Apple has the right to moderate since it's a distribution channel that they host and provide. Their policies are and have always been explicit to the developer, and thus they have the right to make decisions based on those policies.

I'm not saying they haven't screwed up in the past with the App Store, which they have. But so far they've been quick to solve any issue that's come across and have even let go of some boundaries that were initially present.

twocows
May 17th, 2010, 10:06 AM
I don't see how it's a slap in the face for developers. If Apple wants to maintain the quality of their distribution channel, then that's their problem, not yours. Besides, developers aren't forced to use Apple's platform. And even then, their own frameworks aren't really that hard to use. Like I said before, Apple focuses a lot on developer support and always has.
It's not about quality. They will (very often) veto a genuinely useful app in favor of another ten fart apps. That's hardly quality. And "developers aren't forced to use our platform" is an ages old ad hominem argument (you may notice Steve Jobs used it himself in that link, it certainly wouldn't be the first time). Nobody's saying they are forced to use it, I certainly never said people were forced to use their platform, but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite terrible.


Bash me if you can't resist but Apple does innovate. This isn't to say that they've demonstrated the capability to create something completely new, but they definitely have the skill to build upon a concept and make it solid and appealing. The iPhone has spawned an entirely different market that manufacturers didn't even know existed. Since then, pretty much every manufacturer has decided to hop on the bandwagon.
Why would I bash you? Please don't make assumptions, I do not flame people over a bit of debate. I agree that Apple has the ability to improve upon existing designs, but my beef isn't with that, it's that they claim to invent things while doing it. They "invented" the smartphone, they "invented" touch screen, they "invented" multi-touch. No, they didn't. They didn't invent any of things, they did exactly as you said: they improved upon concepts and designs that already existed. Also, the iPhone is probably a poor example of your point (which I actually agree with); the smartphone market was already entirely established, all that changed with the iPhone was the general design of the things (and personally, I hate the new design; give me my tactile response back, please).

I take it the "strips for ipods" is in reference to the App Store, which in my opinion Apple has the right to moderate since it's a distribution channel that they host and provide. Their policies are and have always been explicit to the developer, and thus they have the right to make decisions based on those policies.
No, their policy is not explicit. It's "we can reject your stuff for any reason." Good luck trying to find what that reason is; they only tell if it's getting them bad press, like with the Google App and a few other high profile ones.

TRIFORCE89
May 17th, 2010, 10:32 AM
I brush aside the patents. This happens all the time, regardless of the companies involved. It just escalates when the company or product in question is a success. May be legit, may not. And if it is, that's a shame. But, nothing out of the ordinary is what I'm saying.

Seriously, they have been biased for years, sell you over priced crap and release a new better version the next year just for you to throw more money at them....
Then don't "throw money at them". Welcome to capitalism. That how it works. No company is out there for your best interest aside from ensuring that their products don't harm you - because that'd be another lawsuit. They want money. Every company wants money. Period. They release stuff they think will sell. If you don't want to buy it, then don't, and tell them otherwise. Supply and demand. Just because it exists doesn't mean you need to own it. I have one MacBook Pro and one iPod (and an old mini, but that was free so it doesn't count). I don't run out and buy new stuff all the time. I don't need to. This stuff is built to last. If you want to latest and greatest and keep shelling out money for it, that's your problem (and a corporation's dream).

And besides the suing, there's also Apple trying to get rid of flash even though Adobe has supported Apple for years.
Nothing personal, just business. I *hate* Flash websites. I don't have an iPhone, iPod Touch, or an iPad, but if I did have one I don't think I'd be missing out on much. I would be missing dinky flash games however, and that's where I think this all came out of. The apps. A lot of apps are basically dinky Flash-like applications and games. So, close up the hole for free alternatives I guess. Makes business sense to me. (All that said, I still think Flash should be supported).

The same applies to what apps are made available. Its Apple's distribution channel. If they figure that something is against their best interests, they block it. It's not being mean. Again, capitalism. You have choices. Don't like how the App Store operates? Grab a Google phone or a Blackberry and browse their stores.

There is a lot of questionable and unethical goings-ons in business. Except for maybe the patents (which I don't really know the logistics of), improving your product and protecting your brand are really the most trivial of things.

Yusshin
May 17th, 2010, 10:40 AM
Although I'm all for people's rights to see and look at what they want... I like how Jobs is against porn >> He shouldn't censor it, no, but being against it just made him a better person in my eyes.

Still prefer Gates, though.

Zet
May 17th, 2010, 08:20 PM
Waka, this isn't an Apple bashing thread. There's been threads in the past showing Microsoft being butthurt, but never in my time here in comp & tech have I seen Apple getting butthurt.

Triforce, I have never thrown money at Apple for their overpriced stuff... though I have bought one or two songs from the itunes store since I didn't want to buy a CD for just one or two songs. And most websites you visit will contain some flash.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 18th, 2010, 05:38 AM
]
Then don't "throw money at them". Welcome to capitalism. That how it works. No company is out there for your best interest aside from ensuring that their products don't harm you - because that'd be another lawsuit. They want money. Every company wants money. Period. They release stuff they think will sell. If you don't want to buy it, then don't, and tell them otherwise. Supply and demand. Just because it exists doesn't mean you need to own it. I have one MacBook Pro and one iPod (and an old mini, but that was free so it doesn't count). I don't run out and buy new stuff all the time. I don't need to. This stuff is built to last. If you want to latest and greatest and keep shelling out money for it, that's your problem (and a corporation's dream).
[/FONT]

Who said we bought something of theirs? Some of us are simply well read, and find what Apple's doing despicable. Some of us are already very certain we won't be touching their products.

Apple doesn't play it that simple. Some of their products sell purely by propaganda, despite being inferior and quite frankly logically undesirable.

Oh, and Macs are not built to last. They are not in fact legacy machines. In fact, this whole re-release plan of Apple's is specifically exploiting the fact that Apple products are quite easily replaceable. If anything, I'd say Windows XP is a testament to just how much longer lasting a Windows machine is. After all, if they weren't long lasting, there would've been no "My computer can't run this new OS!!!" backlash because a large majority of people would've had newer computers.

Zet
May 18th, 2010, 06:13 AM
http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-claims-gizmodo039s-iphone-4g-leak-039immensely-damaging039
So apparently the 4G leak is causing serious butthurt in terms for sales, despite the fact that people will get a 3GS and then upgrade next year.

TRIFORCE89
May 18th, 2010, 06:31 AM
Who said we bought something of theirs? Some of us are simply well read, and find what Apple's doing despicable. Some of us are already very certain we won't be touching their products.

Apple doesn't play it that simple. Some of their products sell purely by propaganda, despite being inferior and quite frankly logically undesirable.

Oh, and Macs are not built to last. They are not in fact legacy machines. In fact, this whole re-release plan of Apple's is specifically exploiting the fact that Apple products are quite easily replaceable. If anything, I'd say Windows XP is a testament to just how much longer lasting a Windows machine is. After all, if they weren't long lasting, there would've been no "My computer can't run this new OS!!!" backlash because a large majority of people would've had newer computers.
That's fine. Although I was quoting, I sorta meant it for the population at large. If you don't buy the stuff, great. You're not part of the "problem" then. Although, that's lot of venom for something you've never used.

Windows XP is great. I still run it on my PC (I bought 7 but haven't gotten around to installing it yet :x). But I don't see how the OS shows the longevity of hardware. When Vista and 7 came out, a lot of people upgrading from XP bought new computers specifically for it. My MacBook Pro came with Tiger and I haven't bought another one for Leopard or Snow Leopard.

Right, propaganda. Its called marketing. Diamond Shreddies and toilet paper than rolls in one direction says hi.

twocows
May 18th, 2010, 07:24 AM
Nothing personal, just business. I *hate* Flash websites. I don't have an iPhone, iPod Touch, or an iPad, but if I did have one I don't think I'd be missing out on much. I would be missing dinky flash games however, and that's where I think this all came out of. The apps. A lot of apps are basically dinky Flash-like applications and games. So, close up the hole for free alternatives I guess. Makes business sense to me. (All that said, I still think Flash should be supported).
A lot of content besides games are distributed through Flash these days. Most streaming content (Hulu, YouTube, et. al.) is distributed through Flash, and while some of it is moving to HTML 5, I'd be surprised to see more than one or two websites actually make that transition soon (or ever).

Although I'm all for people's rights to see and look at what they want... I like how Jobs is against porn >> He shouldn't censor it, no, but being against it just made him a better person in my eyes.
I fail to see how pornography is a bad thing in any sense of the word (on the contrary, it's quite possible it has saved countless women from sexual assault), but I guess that's for a different topic. I see him as a far more despicable person for trying to censor the medium.

TRIFORCE89
May 18th, 2010, 08:28 AM
A lot of content besides games are distributed through Flash these days. Most streaming content (Hulu, YouTube, et. al.) is distributed through Flash, and while some of it is moving to HTML 5, I'd be surprised to see more than one or two websites actually make that transition soon (or ever).
Kay. That was an oversight on my part. I come across games and annoying Flash sights were I can't bookmark specific pages more often than I do the video sites. As a Canadian I unfortunately lack access to Hulu and other high quality video sites that I would actually like to visit. I look at YouTube as being like America's Funniest Home Videos; so I don't really pay attention to it. Slipped my mind.

But, isn't there a YouTube app?

wakachamo
May 18th, 2010, 10:34 AM
Who said we bought something of theirs? Some of us are simply well read, and find what Apple's doing despicable. Some of us are already very certain we won't be touching their products.

Apple doesn't play it that simple. Some of their products sell purely by propaganda, despite being inferior and quite frankly logically undesirable.

Oh, and Macs are not built to last. They are not in fact legacy machines. In fact, this whole re-release plan of Apple's is specifically exploiting the fact that Apple products are quite easily replaceable. If anything, I'd say Windows XP is a testament to just how much longer lasting a Windows machine is. After all, if they weren't long lasting, there would've been no "My computer can't run this new OS!!!" backlash because a large majority of people would've had newer computers.

So you say you don't buy Apple products but you personally claim the fact that Macs aren't built to last? That's awesome.

And Windows XP was around for years simply because Vista was mediocre in comparison. I'm not saying it hasn't aged well, but until Windows 7, the public just simply didn't have anything better than it. Thus, people didn't feel the need to upgrade their hardware.

Hope I don't come across as a fanatic, but 'logically desirable' is, despite its wording, subjective. People have different wants and that's obviously going to affect their choice. Just because something is disgustingly unappealing to you doesn't mean everybody else will have the same taste. That's why competition exists, that's where market segmentation came from.

Besides, calling it 'propaganda' sort of takes the whole point away from the capitalist world that we live in. Apple's strong in marketing; why would they stop? Because they're "too good" at it?

twocows
May 18th, 2010, 09:47 PM
So you say you don't buy Apple products but you personally claim the fact that Macs aren't built to last? That's awesome.
It's no secret that Apple's warranty policy is laughable at best. At one time (and perhaps still), a failed battery on a particular product meant buying a new product altogether.

And Windows XP was around for years simply because Vista was mediocre in comparison. I'm not saying it hasn't aged well, but until Windows 7, the public just simply didn't have anything better than it. Thus, people didn't feel the need to upgrade their hardware.
Windows XP was around for years because people were afraid to update, mostly due to FUD, but also due to some legitimate compatibility issues. The biggest problem was outdated hardware, which should simply prompt an upgrade to newer, better hardware. Windows 7 is not much different from Windows Vista SP2, sans some interface and convenience features. Windows Vista was, however, nearly a complete rewrite of Windows; everything from DirectX to the driver model to the boot manager was different; saying that there was nothing better than XP isn't true at all. Vista was a spectacular product; well ahead of its time. Perhaps that was its greatest downfall.

Besides, calling it 'propaganda' sort of takes the whole point away from the capitalist world that we live in. Apple's strong in marketing; why would they stop? Because they're "too good" at it?
I hardly think marketing (another word for tricking people) is the point of capitalism, though maybe it is an unintended side effect.

Archer
May 19th, 2010, 01:02 AM
...Windows XP was around for years because people were afraid to update, mostly due to FUD, but also due to some legitimate compatibility issues. The biggest problem was outdated hardware, which should simply prompt an upgrade to newer, better hardware. Windows 7 is not much different from Windows Vista SP2, sans some interface and convenience features. Windows Vista was, however, nearly a complete rewrite of Windows; everything from DirectX to the driver model to the boot manager was different; saying that there was nothing better than XP isn't true at all. Vista was a spectacular product; well ahead of its time. Perhaps that was its greatest downfall...
You need to remember, and I think you can understand this, given your interest in reviving old machine, that upgrading to better hardware isn't exactly an option. Many people don't understand what is better or worse, and specs rarely help (ie. 1.7GHz Atoms with 1 GB RAM should be as good as the 4-year old 1.6GHz Centrinos {Actually Core Solos} that usually came with 512 MB. Theoretically. People aren't to know that the Atoms have poor cache and generally worse performance). Also, many people simply can't afford to update to a newer machine. Especially considering, that at Vista's release, a Core 2 Duo with >1GB ram (real minimum for Vista to run smoothly) would have cost around $2000 for a laptop.

You also have to remember that Vista was also a lot more sluggish when it was first released (pre SP1). This wasn't helped by the fact that it was regularly sold on machines with 512MB ram. Don't get me wrong, Vista did a lot of great things, but, similarly to what you said, it was just too heavy on release. The fact that the SPs made such a difference shows just how unfinished the code was.

Of course Windows 7 isn't much different to Vista SP2, it's just a new look and label to escape the bad image Vista will always have. It was completely necessary. Keep in mind there is some stuff under the hood, like better SSD support, etc.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 19th, 2010, 07:41 AM
That's fine. Although I was quoting, I sorta meant it for the population at large. If you don't buy the stuff, great. You're not part of the "problem" then. Although, that's lot of venom for something you've never used.

I've used Macs. I've worked in schools where as a techy I was required to. I simply would never buy one.


Windows XP is great. I still run it on my PC (I bought 7 but haven't gotten around to installing it yet :x). But I don't see how the OS shows the longevity of hardware. When Vista and 7 came out, a lot of people upgrading from XP bought new computers specifically for it. My MacBook Pro came with Tiger and I haven't bought another one for Leopard or Snow Leopard.

Unless your PC is old, I'd recommend getting on with that =3. Seven installation is considerably faster than XP was in my experience.

The hardware is pretty much interchangeable from my experience, making it negligible. The software, the OS being a major part of which, is the gears that control the hardware. That being said they play a major part in the longevity of the hardware.


Right, propaganda. Its called marketing. Diamond Shreddies and toilet paper than rolls in one direction says hi.

And that, is called a euphemism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euphemism

Some people consider that wrong, you know.

twocows
May 19th, 2010, 11:10 AM
text
I like being able to put old hardware to use, but most people can afford a new computer. It really only costs about $200. Older computers are great for a number of things, but they really shouldn't be used to browse the internet (and especially not for sensitive things, like online banking).

Atoms are really targeted at netbooks anyway. They're not terrible for an office computer, though. You can get this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128436) for about $90 (motherboard included), which is nice. Plus, availability is a problem for getting older hardware specifically to use in a new computer (of course, if it's just lying around, that's not an issue). Not to mention you're unlikely to get older parts under warranty. Plus, newer CPUs support 64-bit, which everyone (including Microsoft) is pushing. Personally, though, if I was building a budget computer, I'd get something from AMD's lineup; their price/performance ratio is far better than Intel's, even if Intel offers better performance higher up.

Zet
May 21st, 2010, 09:37 PM
Looks like Apple is no longer doing any Windows bashing with the "I'm a Mac" ads, instead their doing bashing with ads like "Why you'll love a Mac"

http://www.stormfront.co.uk/images2/whymac/whymac.jpg

Ironically enough, you can point out how everything listed is a lie.... besides the office and running Windows.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 22nd, 2010, 08:04 AM
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... hard to tell who I hate more sometimes :| Both of them are greedy punks. I like the Mac computer more, but I hate both companies a lot. Whether one company gets more crud than the other I don't care, but they are both trying the same things. I guess I feel a little bad for Microsoft because Apple's gotten away with more, but still...

Bill Gates gave Apple a dozen boatloads of money purely to keep them in business. He is FRIENDS with Steve Jobs. He has given over $28 billion to charity... He has said that he is going to give MOST of his fortune to charity before he's even old enough to consider dieing... (Fyi, the charity is for health and education) What makes you think he's greedy? o.O

Zet
May 22nd, 2010, 06:00 PM
Even though Gates has given Apple money, I'm just sick and appalled that Apple is still selling people overpriced crap.

TheAppleFreak
May 22nd, 2010, 07:07 PM
When I first got into being an Apple fanboy (2003), it was because of their computers. Sleekly designed, with tons of nice little perks about them and a nice OS to work with. Yeah, it was overpriced, but I savored every minute using the Macs at summer camp. Apple's main focus was computers and iPods only, their glory days.

Fast forward 7 years, and look where Apple's at now. Rivalries between companies are abound, with some of the most powerful software giants in the world pitting against Apple (Google and Adobe, namely) and what I believe to be thousands of smaller developers as well. The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad has taken center stage in Cupertino, and the Mac is continually being shunted backwards into obscurity by the company making it. Anyone who follows Mac blogs or Apple-related sites can back me up when I say that they've shifted their focus.

The above is the reason why I'm no longer an Apple fanboy. I see Apple's flaws, I see the problems, I see superior alternatives to their methods. For example, the number one method of bypassing Apple's outrageous hardware prices: build a Hackintosh. Same performance as a Mac Pro, same great OS (I'm still a fan of OS X all the way), less than half the price. Pissed that the App Store isn't accepting that app you want? Install Android on your iPhone with a free bootloader (it's actually possible) or jailbreak it.

Those are my two cents on the situation. I know most of it has already been said, but I'm simply reiterating it. [/rant]